and:
Mother's grief turns to anger over warJean Prewitt can't shake the image of her only son's final hours. She pictures him trying to crawl to safety through a gun fight after his convoy was ambushed in Iraq, a huge hole in his right thigh.
"He was out there all by himself for a long time, crawling, bleeding, asking for help," she says in a soft southern drawl, weeping at the thought of his lonely struggle.
"That just about killed me when I found out. Then two medics risked their lives to get him. They thought he was going to be OK, but he was bleeding a lot. And there was a sandstorm so the helicopter couldn't come for him."
Kelley was 24 when he died near Baghdad, a mere three weeks into the Iraq war.

The British methods faced their greatest tests from the IRA terrorists within Northern Ireland and Britain over the last three decades, coping with atrocities which were designed to provoke the fiercest reprisals. It was the refusal to respond - with some bloody exceptions - which prevented the IRA from widening its support and prepared the way for a settlement.
This long and painful experience of terrorism has made the British more aware than any major power, particularly the US, of the need to understand and outwit the perpetrators of terror. The danger today, after a traumatic week which has shown the extent of the enemy's organisation, is that the British lose their traditional cool.
...
Bin Laden's long-term masterplan was quite clear. He wanted, like previous arch-terrorists, to force his opponents to respond ruthlessly and, to achieve maximum publicity, to produce further recruits.
The primary purpose of the terrorists, wrote Bernard Lewis, Washington's favourite Middle East expert who was one of the brains behind the Iraq war, 'is not to defeat or even to weaken the enemy militarily but to gain publicity - a psychological victory'.
He wanted to provoke a holy war, a Western crusade which would set Christians against Muslims. And he wanted to get the Americans out of his own home country, Saudi Arabia, to bring back the puritan rule of the Wahabi sect.
In all these objectives, he soon succeeded. President Bush quickly declared a 'crusade' against him and a war against terrorism, though it should never have been seen as a war, as British historian Sir Michael Howard soon pointed out. He sent the American fleet back to the Middle East, undermined the Saudi royal family and removed American troops. He gave bin Laden and al-Qaeda the maximum publicity. And he rapidly antagonised innocent Muslims outside and inside America, with 'racial profiling', draconian legislation, mass arrests and detentions and the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.posted by matteo at 6:38 AM on March 21, 2004

Every year, 42,000 people die in accidents on America's roads - an average of 315 deaths a day. Who would argue that such tragic carnage is unsustainable and that the U.S. must quickly find an alternative to the automobile? posted by hama7 at 6:53 AM on March 21, 2004

Hama: you cite Cliff May,k clearly a very conservative writer (I hear him often on TV), but Pearl Harbor we were attacked by an enemy and we respnded. Can you or Cliff say this of Iraq?--why is Iraq suddenly our Pearl Harbor when in fact what Kerry said was that 9/11 was our Pearl Harbor? Recall too that we declared war against Japan and not against any other nation--till Germany subsequently declared war on us and we respnded in kind...my point: a lot of confusion and playing about with terms and history.
As for deaths by cars: yes. people die daily and we are not about to give up cars.And people die in plane crashes, and swimming accidents...that said: it is and remains "accidents"--and this differs from committing people to fight in battle against those who would consciously kill them. Note: I am not even taking a position for or against the Iraq war but simply trying to separate out the nonsense that is being argued.posted by Postroad at 7:14 AM on March 21, 2004

There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun,
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

A Snider squibbed in the jungle,
Somebody laughed and fled,
And the men of the First Shikaris
Picked up their Subaltern dead,
With a big blue mark in his forehead
And the back blown out of his head.

Subadar Prag Tewarri,
Jemadar Hira Lal,
Took command of the party,
Twenty rifles in all,
Marched them down to the river
As the day was beginning to fall.

They buried the boy by the river,
A blanket over his face --
They wept for their dead Lieutenant,
The men of an alien race --
They made a samadh in his honor,
A mark for his resting-place.

For they swore by the Holy Water,
They swore by the salt they ate,
That the soul of Lieutenant Eshmitt Sahib
Should go to his God in state;
With fifty file of Burman
To open him Heaven's gate.

The men of the First Shikaris
Marched till the break of day,
Till they came to the rebel village,
The village of Pabengmay --
A jingal covered the clearing,
Calthrops hampered the way.

Subadar Prag Tewarri,
Bidding them load with ball,
Halted a dozen rifles
Under the village wall;
Sent out a flanking-party
With Jemadar Hira Lal.

The men of the First Shikaris
Shouted and smote and slew,
Turning the grinning jingal
On to the howling crew.
The Jemadar's flanking-party
Butchered the folk who flew.

Long was the morn of slaughter,
Long was the list of slain,
Five score heads were taken,
Five score heads and twain;
And the men of the First Shickaris
Went back to their grave again,

Each man bearing a basket
Red as his palms that day,
Red as the blazing village --
The village of Pabengmay,
And the "drip-drip-drip" from the baskets
Reddened the grass by the way.

They made a pile of their trophies
High as a tall man's chin,
Head upon head distorted,
Set in a sightless grin,
Anger and pain and terror
Stamped on the smoke-scorched skin.

Subadar Prag Tewarri
Put the head of the Boh
On the top of the mound of triumph,
The head of his son below,
With the sword and the peacock-banner
That the world might behold and know.

Thus the samadh was perfect,
Thus was the lesson plain
Of the wrath of the First Shikaris --
The price of a white man slain;
And the men of the First Shikaris
Went back into camp again.

Then a silence came to the river,
A hush fell over the shore,
And Bohs that were brave departed,
And Sniders squibbed no more;
For the Burmans said
That a kullah's head
Must be paid for with heads five score.

There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun,
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

-- The Grave of the Hundred Head, by
Rudyard Kiplingposted by kablam at 7:25 AM on March 21, 2004

One year ago today, America suffered its first casualties of the war in Iraq: a helicopter crashed in the desert near Kuwait City, killing four marines, while two others died from small-arms fire.

Last fall the [New York Times] Op-Ed pages published excerpts from letters home of some of the men and women who died in Iraq. Since then, 176 more soldiers have been killed, according to the Pentagon, bringing the total number of military casualties to 570. [Here] are excerpts from among the last letters that some Army soldiers had sent home to their families.posted by four panels at 7:39 AM on March 21, 2004

That's a nice poem, kablam, but it's not exactly relevant given that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. By all means quote from it in connection with the Afghanistan war, which hasn't been going so well as Bush has diverted resources and attention to deposing Saddam because . . . Well, just because, apparently. (And I'll hold my hand up here and admit that a year ago, I supported the Iraq war because I thought that Bush wouldn't lie to us about something as serious as the need to invade another country. That's the last time I overestimate his honesty.)posted by Zonker at 7:58 AM on March 21, 2004

cool appendage, i want oneposted by poopy at 8:21 AM on March 21, 2004

Yeah, I suppose war is hell, isn't it. It's hell when you're fighting for oil, missing weapons of mass destruction, and corporate interests. It's hell when you lose a limb, a sense, your life... to the war for American Emperialism. It's hell when you are forced into fighting an unjust, unncessary war, not defending the country you swore to defend, but instead invading one impoverished country with one dictator the guy in charge is currently pissed off about.

Sure, there are other dictators to go after, but why when this one was so easy. Sure, there are countries with massive amounts of weapons in hiding, but hell, there's no oil there. There's no business interests there.

Can you or Cliff say this of Iraq?--why is Iraq suddenly our Pearl Harbor when in fact what Kerry said was that 9/11 was our Pearl Harbor?

It could be because the Hussein regime supported, financed, and harbored terrorists, as was evident in the training camps in Salman Pak, mentioned by May, also evident in the capture of al-Quaeda scumbags in Iraq. Hussein was also in flagrant violation of every promise he made after the first Gulf War, and was clearly a threat to the region and to the U.S., and really should have retired twelve years ago after he lost the first war that he stared.

The difference is that Pearl Harbor was a surprise military attack on military targets by a nation which had declared war on the U.S., and the other was an attack by a traceable network of suicidal maniacs on civilians.posted by hama7 at 8:53 AM on March 21, 2004

And this made diverting resources from catching the actual terrorists, shattering our credibility with the international community necessary to support future global anti-terrorism endeavors and leaving Afghanistan to rot practical... how?

Man, the scrounging for tidbits of rationale for Iraq ("Oh, look! This one guy might be al-Qaeda, THAT makes up for letting hundreds of terrorists cross over into Pakistan because we diverted resources!") to honestly make its invasion believable as essential in the war on terrorism has pretty much become laughable at this point.posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:08 AM on March 21, 2004

an attack by a traceable network of suicidal maniacs on civilians.

OK, so the rationale now (it's always changing so I can't keep track -- regime change, no wait, wmd's, no, ahem, it's about spreading democracy, no, wmd's, maybe instead it's the roach motel,...) is that Saddam did 9-11? because even the White House wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot-poleposted by matteo at 9:12 AM on March 21, 2004

It could be because the Hussein regime supported, financed, and harbored terrorists

Since the US supported and financed corrupt regimes from South America to Africa to the middle east, does this mean we get to invade the US?posted by Hildegarde at 9:41 AM on March 21, 2004

there are connections between the first WTC bombing and Iraq. Which is slim but none the less interesting.
Is it not interesting how matteo just starts scatter-wailing and back slipping when Hama or someone posts something they may not like-wait, this is metafilter...

is that Saddam did 9-11? because even the White House wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot-pole

i mean, the commentary, the brilliant delivery, the fact backing shear magnitude of this statement is, is...

well you see his careful data dump, lists for the dead, lists for the wounded, grieving mothers. All very guilt producing tactics.
Even during World War II, mothers grieved and protested the war.

Since the US supported and financed corrupt regimes from South America to Africa to the middle east, does this mean we get to invade the US?

oh and this always brightens my day.
sure go ahead and invade but first the United States will collect all debts and for past crimes done against her for the last 225 years.

-Why did Salameh (of WTC I fame) run up a 4000$ phone bill, many of these calls where placed to Iraq? what did his uncle Bakir do for Iraq and the PLO?

-Yasin, WTC conspirator fled to Iraq and worked for the government, why?

THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN 9/11 AND SADDAM. If there was we'd have heard it screamed from the mountain tops, but we only get Dick Cheney telling us about the Northern Iraq training camps, and as we all know northern Iraq was not under saddam's control, and we all know that the US could have gone in and taken out those camps without destabilizing a whole country.

Anyway, this is not what the discussion should be about. We should be focusing on the fact that the dept of defense failed to properly plan for post war Iraq, they ignored the State department's planning. If you are going to go to war with 80 percent of the country's citizens backing you, don't you think they should have planned for the aftermath, instead we now have an Iraq that resembles the West Bank, suicide bombings, gangs of insurgents shooting at troops, roadside bombs, but we do have a constitution, sort of.posted by jbou at 10:30 AM on March 21, 2004

Which is slim but none the less interesting.

you're out there alone in the swamps, with Laurie Mylroie and a few others.
get back to us when you have something more than speculation about a discrepancy on Ramzi's height on a 20-year-old faded document, OK?
(as you see I did my homework, no matter how loud you cry 'backslipping' or whatever).

Of course. But no matter how hard you spin the "Saddam is Hitler" line, it won't do you much good.
it sure didn't help Poppy back in 1991

clav, you seem to be confusing interesting tidbit of info re a potential, very weakly alleged the Iraq-WTC 1993 link with reason to attaq Iraq after 9-11. the former is worthy of further serious (and bipartisan, ie no OSP involved this time OK?) investigation, I agree. the second is only a huge credibility gap, and it'll probably be the one thing to bring down Bush in the near future if he is elected in November.
wanna bet?
;)

and by the way I thought your standard of info reliability was higher than Mylroie's. at 221 Baker somebody's shaking his head, clavdivs

*As recently as Sunday, the administration was still being forced to backtrack on its more apocalyptic remarks. When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld insisted last Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he had never called Iraq an "immediate threat," his hosts simply read from the public record. Rumsfeld indeed had stated, referring to Saddam, that "no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people."

Rumsfeld's response, according to the CBS transcript: "Mm-hmmm. It ... my view of ... of the situation was that he ... he had ... we ... we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that ... that we believed and we still do not know ... we will know."

These exchanges demonstrate why Iraq has also become a line in the sand between America and many of its traditional allies. Foreigners who are still drawn to the American culture are nonetheless troubled by the government's credibility gap, and it is hard to imagine that the Bush neoconservatives who preach preemptive war would be able to muster major international support for any new endeavor.

Since the US supported and financed corrupt regimes from South America to Africa to the middle east, does this mean we get to invade the US?

Who's "we"? This kind of nonsense gets patty-caked around a lot on websites like Mother effing Jones, but in real life it's a lot like the American Democratic Party trying to decide which corrupt presidential candidate to support and finance until he loses spectacularly. It's a matter of choosing the one that is less ploddingly awful.posted by hama7 at 11:08 AM on March 21, 2004

but in real life it's a lot like the American Democratic Party trying to decide which corrupt presidential candidate to support and finance until he loses spectacularly. It's a matter of choosing the one that is less ploddingly awful.

I agree, clearly the Democrats have to negotiate between often-lackluster candidates to pick the one they support, as the alternative is much more awful- a Republican president.

But I'm guessing that's not what you were trying to say in your snotty little comment, was it. ;)posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:19 AM on March 21, 2004

it's not about a tit-for-tat joke about "honest takes".
it's about facts playing increasingly against one side of the discussion.

or do you mean that MotherJones photoshopped those artificial limbs and juxtaposed them on perfectly healthy legs?posted by matteo at 11:34 AM on March 21, 2004

Of course. But no matter how hard you spin the "Saddam is Hitler" line, it won't do you much good.

hmmm, the point is that mothers grieve and become angered in any war, I used WWII as an example.
and don't they have the right?

cut to the bare bone shall we? I see no 9/11 connection either.
connection, see, this implies that a simple trail could be followed...proof in other words.

Is there proof that saddam did not help out OBL.
Did saddam offer Bin Laden asylum on more then two occasions?

despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

"it seems there is no connection Mr. President"

things are not as they seem?

Why would an Iraqi agent travel openly as an Iraqi?
(from your link)
agent? did someone know he was an agent? agent of who? agent when?

On Oct. 12, 2000, the day of the devastating terrorist attack on the USS Cole, President Clinton's highest-level national security team met to determine what to do. Counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke wanted to hit Afghanistan, aiming at Osama bin Laden's complex and the terrorist leader himself

Clake wanted to bomb OBL ASAP.

what made clake so sure? a hunch, some intel, mother hubbard open her cupboard?

The problem of the Oct. 12 meeting was the caution common to all councils of war. Arguments by participants sound valid, but collectively they built a future catastrophe. (same article as above)

it's about facts playing increasingly against one side of the discussion.

hmmm.the absence of wmd's is not an opinion,

well where is the evidence they where never there. Because they have not been found? maybe they where hid, maybe he had a few, maybe he had none.posted by clavdivs at 11:51 AM on March 21, 2004

Right. Have you stopped beating your wife, clavdivs?posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:05 PM on March 21, 2004

Easy as f*ck to say "wars was worth it" until you have to actually fight it, I have and all you warhawks, Fu*k you, it ain't worth it.

You want the fight so much join up and go, Goddamn gleeclub for death.posted by Elim at 12:14 PM on March 21, 2004

it's about facts playing increasingly against one side of the discussion.

no, it's about facts being distorted by BOTH sides, as you so willingly demonstrate. for all the talk about progressive intelligence, this type of shit is just disappointing.posted by poopy at 12:30 PM on March 21, 2004

matteo, i've actually heard some fairly good arguments from the pro-life side (not that i agree with them), but show me a picture of an aborted fetus and i'll direct you to the nearest ogrish.com.posted by poopy at 12:33 PM on March 21, 2004

uh Steve, did I say Mother Jones was a good source, no, in fact I'd go as far saying it's just a left wing rag, just like the NR is a right wing rag. In fact I said that we should be discussing the failure to plan for the post war not the fact if the war was justified. The Bush administration was going to fight this war no matter what, the fact that they failed to prepare for the post war situation in Iraq is a failure of epic proportions. The Atlantic Monthly had a print only story about the failures in their Jan/Feb issue it was quite the eye opener.posted by jbou at 12:49 PM on March 21, 2004

for all the talk about progressive intelligence, this type of shit is just disappointing.
i do agree, asking questions is all there really is...

i do have so many questions.
and to give you so more things to question are our solders coming back and finding the work situation look bleak, for some, not all but...

Easy as f*ck to say "wars was worth it" until you have to actually fight it, I have and all you warhawks, Fu*k you, it ain't worth it.

You want the fight so much join up and go, Goddamn gleeclub for death.

see, it is pricks like you elim my father and sister hated as military people. Ones who blame the civialins for opinion then and bitch and moan. Oh, my father was president of a Glee club, sang like an angel.posted by clavdivs at 2:39 PM on March 21, 2004

clavdivs, for having the appearance of a reasonably intelligent person, I wonder deeply how you got stuck on the ludicrous idea that you could (or should even be called) to prove a negative.

If assertions come from one side, and the relevent facts do bare those assertions out, then blaming the other side for not proving those assertions to be false is .. folderol, willfully ignorant, decidedly apologetic for an unreasonable stance, and transparent to any who bother to look. I, quite honestly, expected better.posted by Wulfgar! at 2:51 PM on March 21, 2004

"and the relevent facts do {NOT} bear those assertions out",

That was a truly unfortunate typo.posted by Wulfgar! at 2:53 PM on March 21, 2004

well where is the evidence they where never there.

Where is the evidence you've never killed anyone? Yeah, I know there is no body, and no murder weapon, and no complaints that someone was murdered. But maybe we should bring you up on charges, anyways, just in case you might, on the off chance, have killed someone.posted by benjh at 3:31 PM on March 21, 2004

you question
intelligence
:)posted by clavdivs at 3:33 PM on March 21, 2004

To all of those who believe that there can never be a just war. Who are appalled, afraid and cannot abide the idea of war. Who curl up in a ball when confronted by a war they cannot ignore. People for whom violence, aggression and meanness just cannot be permitted in their reality.

War comes for you. War comes because of you. If you cannot transcend aggression by understanding aggression, then you are condemned to be the victim of aggression. You cannot hide, war will not let you. You cannot pretend war away, or argue it away, or complain it or deny it. It does not need your vote, or cares for your opinion. And your life means nothing to it. Your children will have to contend with it someday, for you cannot even shield them from it.

Why? Because there are many, many people who hate you. It is an insane, deaf and blind hatred. It cannot be cured, argued away, discussed rationally, group therapied, or bribed away. They want you to suffer and die, or just die. They want every trace of you and your world destroyed utterly. Even the destruction of the entire world would be justified in destroying your part of it.

You are more than death to them. You are their Satan, the very essence of evil. You are the bodyguard of lies, and all that issues from you is, like you, evil. Your very life is, to them, as repugnant as violence and war is to you.

Whether you make war on them or not does not matter--they will fight a demon whether he fights back or not.

So there you are, pacifist, lumped together with war mongers and warriors whether you like it or not. Choose to not pick up a rifle and defend yourself--you will die quickly and not consume the rations of those who would waste time defending you from your fears. The meek will inherit at least six feet of earth.posted by kablam at 4:25 PM on March 21, 2004

So which audience does that speech apply to, kablam?posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:34 PM on March 21, 2004

*
In recent months, US news organizations have rushed to expose the Bush administration's pre-war failings on Iraq. "Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper," declared a recent headline in The Washington Post. "Pressure Rises for Probe of Prewar-Intelligence," said The Wall Street Journal. "So, What Went Wrong?" asked Time. In The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh described how the Pentagon set up its own intelligence unit, the Office of Special Plans, to sift for data to support the administration's claims about Iraq. And on "Truth, War and Consequences," a Frontline documentary that aired last October, a procession of intelligence analysts testified to the administration's use of what one of them called "faith-based intelligence."
Watching and reading all this, one is tempted to ask, where were you all before the war? Why didn't we learn more about these deceptions and concealments in the months when the administration was pressing its case for regime change—when, in short, it might have made a difference? Some maintain that the many analysts who've spoken out since the end of the war were mute before it. But that's not true. Beginning in the summer of 2002, the "intelligence community" was rent by bitter disputes over how Bush officials were using the data on Iraq. Many journalists knew about this, yet few chose to write about it.
Before the war, for instance, there was a loud debate among intelligence analysts over the information provided to the Pentagon by Iraqi opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi and defectors linked to him. Yet little of this seeped into the press.posted by matteo at 4:36 PM on March 21, 2004

Wow, kablam, that was really profound. It has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq (except maybe as the battle cry of the insurgents) but, damn, it sure changed my mind. Okay, that's a lie. No it didn't. IraqAtaq, I still view as an unjust, poorly planned, poorly implemented, and an unnecessary foray by the Bushicons; but, damn, that was so profound. I guess the opposite of pacifism is wanting to screw with others just 'cause your leaders say you should. Glad we clarified that.

And clavdivs, I never questioned your intelligence, I questioned your integrity in the face of your intelligence. You do see the difference, don't you?posted by Wulfgar! at 5:10 PM on March 21, 2004

please
they way i phrased it
was open to any interpertation you see fit.
simple really. you question intelligence.posted by clavdivs at 5:17 PM on March 21, 2004

It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade waiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.

He turned to Brown, from whom he’d heard some whispered slur or demurrer. Ah Davy, he said. It’s your own trade we honor here. Why not rather take a small bow. Let each acknowledge each.

My trade?

Certainly.

What is my trade?

War. War is your trade. Is it not?

And it aint yours?

Mine too. Very much so.

What about all them notebooks and bones and stuff?

All other trades are contained in that of war.

Is that why war endures?

No. It endures because young men love it and old men love it in them. Those that fought, those that did not.

-Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, found in an essay "The Only God is the God of War"posted by john at 10:08 PM on March 21, 2004

News Flash: War is Hell.

- therefore the last thing the born-again prezident should be inflicting upon his fellow man, who is my brother?.posted by johnnyboy at 7:18 AM on March 22, 2004

Tags

Share

About MetaFilter

MetaFilter is a weblog that anyone can contribute a link or a comment to. A typical weblog is one person posting their thoughts on the unique things they find on the web. This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members.